On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 01:55:50PM +0200, Klaus Darilion wrote: > But honestly SVCB will not solve the ANAME problem. I will take years > until all resolvers/client would support SVCB whereas ANAME would be > implemented in the authoritative name server and hence would work for > every client/resolver as client/resolver never sees the ANAME but only > the A/AAAA record.
Most browsers update themselves these days, so getting HTTPS/SVCB support rolled out in the client seems to be a lesser problem. Doing ANAME properly would require resolver upgrades. 99% of the reason for ANAME was that browser vendors were unwilling to use SRV. If they *are* willing to use HTTPS/SVCB - which looks promising at the moment - then the remaining use cases for ANAME aren't worth the complexity. -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
